Dear Editor,
I have the greatest regard for Mr. L. Christopher Ram, for fearlessly fighting against executive abuse and lawlessness. Mr. Ram as a member of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), as a TV talk show host, columnist and letter writer, has championed many worthwhile causes.
Mr. Ram was recently featured prominently in the press, as the Attorney representing the National Aircraft Transport Association (NATA), but now writes a letter in Stabroek News, published under his personal imprimatur Christopher Ram, asking ‘What was Granger’s role in the context of Article 24 of the Ogle Lease Agreement’, (SN May 8/2016).
Mr. Ram would agree that participating and touting public opinion in his capacity as a private citizen in your letter columns, in a matter in which he appears as an attorney, is highly improper and contrary to the high moral plane he exalts. I trust that this was an oversight by both Attorney Mr. Christopher Ram and the Editor of Stabroek News. I know it has not escaped public notice as several persons called me this morning, addressing the same point in the most inelegant manner.
Mr. Ram knows that President Granger has a full complement of accomplished lawyers at his disposal, including the Hon. Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mr. Basil Williams, as well as many other lawyers in his Cabinet including the Prime Minister Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, with whom he can consult, so Mr. Ram’s call for me to explain the role of the President in the context of Article 24 of the Lease Agreement between the Government and Ogle Airport Inc. which deals with the name and approach to a name change of the Ogle airport, is misdirected and misplaced. Nevertheless, but not intending to usurp the role of the government’s lawyers, I will attempt this modest answer.
First, I have not seen anything or anywhere in the public domain that suggests or supports a claim that President David A. Granger personally directed the private company Ogle Airport Inc., to trigger the operation of Article 24.1 of the OAI Lease Agreement with the government, to which Mr. Ram refers. If Mr. Ram is aware of such a directive he should make it public.
What has been disclosed is that the OAI board subsequent to Sept. 19, passed a resolution based on the said Article 24.1, as is required under their by-laws, giving effect to a name change. If it were the reverse, that the resolution was first passed and then the president made his announcement, the conspiracy theory would have some justification.
What is clear is that the president suggested a name change, and that OAI, perhaps opportunistically, gave effect to the president’s wishes triggering Article 24.1 of the Lease Agreement.
Secondly, I do not wish to disparage Mr. Ram’s questions asked in the final paragraph of his letter, as on the face of it, they appear very puerile. Mr. Ram’s first question in this paragraph, implies that there has been some breach or violation of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. No one is naïve to believe otherwise.
However, Mr. Ram does not cite the exact violation or breach incurred by the president. Even in the absence of such information the most formally or informally learned and unlearned, would tell Mr. Ram that the president is not above the law and cannot act ultra vires or in violation of the constitution. But Mr. Ram knows this. Is he just mischief making?
Thirdly, Mr. Ram’s referencing of public law breaches is bewildering. I would encourage Ram to read the case Michael Scotland v Guyana Electricity Corporation #14/2002 CA Civ. Appeal, Guyana, where he would hopefully gain an appreciation on the application of private law and public law, and the distinctions to be drawn. Again and hopefully, he would note that even if there is a procedural breach in a private company which is wholly owned by the state, remedy in public law does not apply and redress falls within the ambit of private law.
The matter of the resolution of the OAI giving effect to the name change, being challenged in the courts, is a question for private law and not public law. If Mr. Ram holds a contrary position that’s all well and good and I look forward to learn from the legal reasoning in due course.
Mr. Ram’s failure to provide any violation and breach is tantamount to rumour mongering, that President Granger is violating the ‘constitution, other laws and lawful documents’. This is very serious stuff and deserves a swift response from the government.
Lastly, I would concede that had the president directed the Registrar of Companies to change the name of Ogle to E F Correia that would have been an abuse of executive power and fertile ground for a challenge in public law. I am unaware of this being so, and if Mr. Ram is possessed of such information he owes a public duty to Guyana to disclose same.
I wish to assure Mr. Ram that I would be the one of the first to condemn such conduct.
Yours faithfully,
Jerome Khan
